Early Career Forum

About the Forum
ECF Resources
Publishing, Research, Grad Students & Future Faculty Publishing, Research, Grad Students & Future Faculty

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Opportunities for Pivoting Research during COVID-19

By Kathrin Maki, University of Florida & Bryn Harris, University of Colorado DenverGiven the ongoing pandemic, many early career researchers may need to pivot their research programs because timelines for tenure and promotion and annual expectations may be unchanged and there may be ongoing disruptions to prior research activities. This leaves researchers looking for new, creative ways to advance their research agendas – a challenging yet exciting process. Completing systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be one method of advancing research and productivity during the pandemic, while also contributing to the literature base and knowledge in the field.Defining Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysesThe aim of a systematic review is to use systematic methods to summarize empirical evidence to produce reliable findings that inform decision making (Cochrane, 2021). Many literature reviews within articles in peer-reviewed journals differ from systematic reviews because they do not involve a systematic search of the literature, but rather authors select the articles reviewed, which may result in selection bias. Systemic review is an umbrella term for approaches that attempt to reduce this bias to provide a comprehensive synthesis of available evidence on a given topic.Like all research, systematic reviews vary in quality. Robust, reproducible methods for determining eligibility criteria for studies will result in a higher caliber systemic review. The comprehensiveness of the systematic search is particularly important in systematic reviews. The creation of a comprehensive and well-conceptualized protocol for study inclusion is an essential component of a strong systematic review. This article provides a detailed overview of conducting a strong systematic review in the field of psychology. For example, researchers need to decide on study inclusion criteria such as participant age range, study design, conditions, language of publication, and publication type. Researchers will need to select the type of studies to include such as RCT only, quasi-experimental designs, single-case designs, or qualitative research. Researchers will also need to determine what type of literature to include, for example, the potential inclusion of unpublished studies.Meta-analysis is a subtype of systematic review. Meta-analyses use statistical methods to summarize the results of the included studies. By quantitatively combining outcomes from all relevant studies, a meta-analysis can provide specific estimates of efficacy that are more precise than single studies because they are computed from a larger body of information (Cochrane, 2021). Like systematic reviews generally, the protocol process for study inclusion is often the most time intensive aspect of meta-analysis. Many published meta-analyses do not include important variables such as race, culture, and indicators of socioeconomic status, thus leading to large gaps in the literature. Examining such variables provides comprehensive information on treatment effectiveness across populations. In systematic reviews generally, and meta-analyses specifically, a discussion of the way in which the authors reduced their risk of bias is also considered best practice (referred to as publication bias; McClain et al., 2021). Although meta-analyses rely on quantitative data, a different form of systematic review called a meta-synthesis summarizes qualitative studies. See Lachal et al. (2017) for an overview of this methodology.Advantages of Systematic Reviews There are several potential advantages of systematic reviews for early career scholars’ research agendas. Many early career scholars experience the pressure of demonstrating research productivity through consistent publication of articles in high quality journals relevant to their field. As part of the tenure and promotion process, early career scholars often need to demonstrate their research productivity (in addition to teaching and service). Systematic reviews contribute to research in school psychology by providing a comprehensive understanding of the state of the evidence for a specific topic. The knowledge gained through systematic reviews can provide synthesized empirical support for implementing certain practices or it can suggest areas in need of further research when results suggest practices may be ineffective or lacking support.Systematic reviews are also often highly cited, and if conducted rigorously, may be published in strong journals. At some institutions, metrics such as impact factor and citation counts factor into tenure and promotion decisions. Regardless of how closely impact factors and citation counts are examined at your university, you will want to show how your research contributes to the field and such metrics are one way to do so. All school psychology journals welcome systematic reviews and meta-analyses submissions.Advantages to Conducting Systematic Reviews During the COVID-19 Pandemic One year into the pandemic, scholars continue to deal with its effects on their research productivity and teaching. For many school psychology researchers, our work is dependent upon collecting data in K12 schools, but many school districts across the country continue to provide instruction virtually. Even in school districts where face-to-face instruction is provided, students’ educational experiences are anything but traditional. Further, many schools are restricting visitors from school campuses in an effort to minimize opportunities for spreading the virus. Similarly, data collection in other applied settings (e.g., clinics, hospitals) has also been impacted by changes in how services are provided to clients (e.g., telehealth). As a result of these significant changes in systems’ functioning, applied researchers are experiencing significant setbacks in conducting research.Systematic reviews can offer an alternative research pathway for students, faculty, and other early career scholars who have hit significant roadblocks in conducting research during the pandemic. The most meaningful, and perhaps obvious, advantage to conducting systematic reviews is the elimination of the logistical challenges of conducting traditional research in applied settings during the pandemic. Data collection for systematic reviews is dependent upon accessing published articles (and perhaps dissertations and grey literature) from your university library, which you can comfortably do while you work from home during the pandemic.Speaking of your university library, your librarian can be a valuable resource if you conduct a systematic review. They are experts in how to navigate the library databases, which databases may be most appropriate for your area of research, how to effectively search the databases, and many other related areas as well. In our experiences, university librarians have been extremely helpful for accessing and learning various resources to support such work.Challenges and LimitationsFor many of us in school psychology, we are all too familiar with the logistical challenges and time intensity of collecting data in complicated systems (e.g., schools, clinics, hospitals). Systematic reviews, therefore, may appear to be the answer you’ve been hoping for to continue your research while alleviating the challenges associated with traditional data collection. And they can be. However, it is also important to be aware of the challenges of conducting systematic reviews before getting started.Systematic reviews can be time intensive and, like all research, require a rigorous methodological approach. They require significant planning and forethought to develop your methodology as you plan and revise appropriate search terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and coding schemes before implementing your study. Like school-based research, ensuring you have enough personnel resources can also be a challenge. Your systematic review will be more methodologically rigorous and the results more reliable if more than one researcher determines study eligibility and codes at least a portion, if not all, of the articles and variables. Ensuring you and your collaborators reliably determine study inclusion and code variables typically requires an iterative process of practice coding (and resulting revisions to the criteria and codes), all of which can take an extensive amount of time.There are also methodological challenges associated with systematic reviews. Attempting to review studies that have been conducted in different ways and incorporate different variables or measures can present a quandary as to how best to capture study methods and appropriately synthesize or meta-analyze findings. Further, meta-analytical approaches continue to advance including, but not limited to, the use of multilevel modeling, effect size calculation for single-case design studies, and means for assessing publication bias, all of which require methodological and analytical skill fluency. It may be helpful to consult or collaborate with a methodological or quantitative expert for procedural and statistical support.More systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted during the global pandemic across the world. However, a recent meta-analysis of medical studies pertaining to COVID-19 interventions has uncovered substantial flaws in research design, thus leading to potentially problematic medical intervention decisions based on the results. This finding also raises the issue of promoting expedited science and the need for scientific rigor regardless of global context. School psychology researchers must understand the nuances of this method and work to produce rigorous studies in order to support effective decisions among stakeholders using study results (e.g., practitioners, policy makers, other researchers).Introductory Readings and Resources The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) provides guidance on the reporting of systematic review methodology and results. It outlines a protocol for conducting systematic reviews, the information that should be included in each section of the resulting manuscript, and provides a diagram template for reporting of study inclusion procedures. Many journals will encourage or require that systematic reviews are conducted and reported in line with the PRISMA guidelines.For general information on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses:

For information on methodological considerations for systematic reviews:

For information on examining and addressing publication bias in meta-analyses, see:

Read More
Publishing, Conferences Networking, Promotion & Tenure, Grad Students & Future Faculty Publishing, Conferences Networking, Promotion & Tenure, Grad Students & Future Faculty

Science Communication: It's a Dialogue, Not a Monologue

By Ryan Farmer, PhD, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State UniversityUniversity faculty are often encouraged to engage in ‘outreach’ to increase the impact of their work locally, nationally, and internationally. While this may take many forms, such as working with local schools, providing professional development, and so forth, one increasingly popular approach is science communication. Science communication (scicomm) is communication aimed at engaging or informing an audience about science-related topics, and can serve a variety of traditional purposes such as (a) increasing awareness or (b) interest in specific topics; (c) developing understanding; and (d) providing information for decision-making. Throughout 2020 and into 2021, we saw a great deal of scicomm about COVID-19 including dashboards to relay information about the spread of the virus (e.g., https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/), information about the efficacy of mask-wearing (e.g., https://aatishb.com/maskmath/), and vaccine efficacy and safety (e.g., https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-vaccines-infographic). Other perennial topics have long been front-and-center of scicomm efforts, including climate science, GMOs, and health and dieting. While these efforts are intended to share information on controversial and important topics for the general public, science communication may target a variety of audiences for many different purposes. On a much smaller scale, individual researchers often share research within and between research communities, with practitioners, or target specific audiences such as policymakers and related professionals. School psychology researchers are well-poised to engage in science communication as they can assist with developing deeper understanding and awareness of important issues and influence their impact in real time. Why Should You Consider Science Communication?The most obvious ‘why’ of scicomm is the transmission of information from an expert to an audience. This dissemination paradigm is the most traditional approach to science communication and is captured well by university press releases, documentaries, science books, and interviews on news and podcast mediums. In the dissemination paradigm, information only--or primarily--moves in one direction. The Conversation is an exemplar of this approach and most scicomm efforts in school psychology have existed primarily within the dissemination paradigm (e.g., School Psyched Podcast) as well. In contrast, the public participation paradigm is built on the idea of a dialogue between the expert(s), public, and policymakers. Kappel and Holmen (2019) write about more-and-less involved approaches to the public participation approach, ranging from organized efforts to involve members of the public in an ongoing research project to public hearings. Perhaps the most obvious examples of the public participation paradigm in school psychology are the active school psychology communities on Twitter (#schoolpsychology), Practitioner Conversation sessions at NASP, and research-practice partnerships. The benefits of more traditional scicomm are clearer, though scicomm built around improving dialogue has the potential to improve research questions and methods, social validity, and involvement from stakeholders. Both approaches have a small but meaningful potential to narrow the scientist-practitioner gap.How to Get StartedThere are many ways to get started with scicomm, including posting information about a paper you’ve written on social media. Take, for instance, this tweet from Dr. Dan Cohen.

In this thread of tweets, Dr. Cohen shares his research, tags relevant users on Twitter, and then describes--broadly--the findings of the paper through a series of tweets. While built primarily from a dissemination paradigm, this approach to scicomm has great potential for dialogue as readers can respond to each tweet in the thread with comments or questions.Using Twitter as a scientist may seem a bit daunting. For those who are interested in learning more, Dr. Daniel Quintana maintains Twitter for Scientists, which is a guide to using Twitter to get feedback on ongoing work, engage in scicomm, and build your reputation in an online community. Researchers may choose to have an individual account or a lab account, but the effect is largely similar. Ortega (2016) found that papers published by Twitter users were more likely to be shared on Twitter, and that “...it indirectly could influence the research impact because the visibility of academic outputs could benefit the citing of those materials” (p. 1362). It is likely that when papers are behind paywalls, the impact of sharing via Twitter may be diminished (cf. OA Citation effect). Twitter, however, is just one avenue. Researchers have been turning to other digital media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube (see How to Succeed as an Academic on Youtube), and blogs to share research and engage with audiences. More traditional approaches, such as posting material to college digital repositories and professional listservs also remain viable as approaches to promote your work, but may not create an open dialogue or provide users with an opportunity to expand or clarify.Before we jump into recommended practices, those interested in learning more about scicomm should check out these podcast episodes from Everything Hertz*:14: Science Communication107: Memes, TikTok, and Science Communication with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti*may contain explicit language.Early career faculty interested in learning more about the science behind science communication are referred to the journal, Science Communication, which has been publishing rich content since the late 1970s. Other sources of information include The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University and the AAAS Communication Toolkit. In addition, wonderful digital resources are available, such as Canva, PiktoChart, Sci Ani, and WordPress that can help people start building and sharing content.General RecommendationsThe School of Public Affairs at American University has shared an introduction to scicomm and outlined several recommended practices. Similarly, Choo and Lewis (2021) provided recommendations from their active scicomm efforts. Rather than copying their content here, I’ll provide a brief outline of their recommendations below.

  1. Plan ahead (e.g., research the audience; prepare, practice, and get feedback).
  2. Identify your goals.
  3. Collaborate with other experts and organizations.
  4. Communicate your content accurately, ethically, and clearly.
  5. Engage on social media (e.g., in ongoing discussions).
  6. Establish trust and build relationships with your audience.
  7. Respect your audience.
  8. Be flexible.
  9. Seek out training.
  10. Embrace what science can tell us (and what it can’t).
  11. Be humble about what you know and don’t know (see Skipper’s The Humility Heuristic).

Additional resources have encouraged the use of humor (Jocularity, jocularity, jocularity!) within reason, share information in images or videos whenever possible (e.g., a key figure from your paper), keep the text short and relatively jargon-free, use--but beware--metaphors, and consider the venue. Above all else: follow the evidence and be humble. Scicomm should not be limited to positive results, and we should embrace uncertainty in our outcomes. This might include specifying the boundary conditions of observed effects, the limitations of our design, and the potential for error. It may also simply be embracing uncertainty with a bit of humility. Communicating uncertainty can feel like a risk, especially when you want others to take your information and apply it to their research, their practice, or in policy change. However, there’s good reason to believe that communicating uncertainty is ethically appropriate (Lewis et al., 2020) and, at the very least, doesn’t significantly decrease our public credibility (Gustafson & Rice, 2019). Ultimately, school psychology is somewhat unique in that our audience is three-fold. We may be talking within the academy (i.e., to scientists), from the academy to persons outside of our field (i.e., non-scientists), and from the academy to practitioners (e.g., scientist-practitioners). We have to understand our goals in communicating, the background knowledge of our audience, and that even within each audience, the relevance of your work is going to vary. Each of these factors must be considered before any communication will be successful. Also, Eric Elias and Rebecca Comizio from the School Psyched Podcast team provided some general advice for people interested in engaging in scicomm.When asked about the biggest lesson they’ve learned doing scicomm, Rebecca Comizio said that “It’s hard because regular communication is even harder. People don’t speak science, or fully appreciate/understand it.” Similarly, Eric Elias commented said “I think one lesson is that as a practice, pseudoscience has its hooks in deeply. We often sink to the easiest common denominator in some aspects of practice. In other words, pseudoscience is easier to follow because it’s less challenging.” Both hosts seemed to come to the same general conclusion: science is hard, and communicating it is no easy task. When asked about the advice she would give to people interested in starting to engage in scicomm, Ms. Comizio said “...know what you don’t know and name it. Keep an open mind and keep learning. Shoot for understanding, not convincing.”Getting Credit for Your SciCommLet’s be honest with one another: If you’re on the tenure track, finding time to tie your shoelaces can be a challenge. Engaging in any kind of professional activity without a clear product to add to your annual or promotion materials is a hard sale. While traditional forms of scicomm (e.g., interviews, popular press articles) can be directly cited in your evaluation materials, this is less clear for scicomm efforts on social media. To address this (very real) concern, I’d remind you that scicomm can pay dividends. As we discussed earlier, it can lead to increased awareness of your work, and thus increased impact. It may also lead to additional opportunities to collaborate, speaking invitations, and a boost to your professional reputation. But what about the short game? One way to get immediate credit for your scicomm efforts is to use Open Science platforms such as Figshare or the Open Science Framework to host your scicomm products (e.g., infographics, videos). First, this produces a stable link which you can tie to a line on your CV or other materials. But perhaps more importantly, both systems can produce digital object identifiers for your work. Take for example this infographic that our research team produced regarding remote ability testing during COVID-19. Not only is that figure shareable, but it can also be cited. Thinking outside the box, using some of the resources produced by the open science movement, and looking toward the future may help in evaluating the impact of your scicomm efforts.ConclusionThroughout this blog post, I’ve tried to embed resources on various topics, where to find research on effective communication strategies, general recommendations, and a bit of advice from people doing the work. There’s no debate: scicomm takes effort, persistence, and time. However, the payoff can be completely worth the effort. What benefit could scicomm have for your research? How might school psychology faculty use scicomm to increase the use of culturally-responsive and evidence-based practices? 

Read More
Publishing Publishing

Where Should I Send My Paper? Input from New Editors

By Ethan Van Norman, Lehigh University, with Robin Codding, Northeastern University; Craig Albers, University of Wisconsin Madison; and Shane Jimerson, University of California Santa BarbaraA cursory look through the topics addressed in the ECF blog sheds light on the numerous challenges associated with conducting research and preparing manuscripts you are likely to face as an early career scholar. Yet, even after the data are collected results are written up, and you’ve finally re-formatted all your tables to be consistent with the APA 7th edition publication manual, an extremely common question that you may ask yourself is, “Where should I send this paper?” Previous blog posts on choosing journals and open access publishing have offered general advice for navigating this decision. The purpose of this post is to dive further into considerations for determining whether your work is a good fit for School Psychology, School Psychology Review, or the Journal of School Psychology.The fact that you are reading this suggests that you are actively engaged or will be engaged in research that addresses issues relevant to the field of school psychology. Yet, if you have had had the joy of planning training curricula or reviewing training standards, you are well aware that the field encompasses a broad range of topics. As a consequence, school psychology researchers publish in a wide variety of journals with foci that overlap with the broader aims of the field to varying degrees (Hulac, Johnson, Ushijima, & Schneider, 2016). Yet, if you identify as a school psychologist, it is reasonable to assume that your research has some implications for the field of school psychology, and, as a consequence, at least some of your work should be published in journals widely read by your peers, or generalist school psychology journals (Floyd, 2018). To be blunt, it is likely that members of your promotion and tenure committee, as well as external letter writers, will expect that at least some of your work appears in journals widely read by school psychologists.In 2020, three generalist school psychology journals have or will be undergoing changes in editorial leadership. Dr. Robin Codding from Northeastern University will become the editor of School Psychology (formerly School Psychology Quarterly). Dr. Shane Jimerson from the University of California Santa Barbara will become editor of School Psychology Review. And Dr. Craig Albers will become editor of the Journal of School Psychology. An important recommendation from the previous blog post was that reading commentaries written by incoming editors can help you gain a sense of the editorial priorities and points of emphasis of the journal to make an informed decision about the fit of your paper with that journal. We have tried to facilitate this process by bringing together each editor to answer a common set of questions.Question 1: What is your vision for the journal moving forward? What major changes if any should authors look forward to?Robin Codding School Psychology: School Psychology has always prided itself on enhancing the science, practice, and policy of immediately pertinent issues for children, youth, and the adults who support them. We hope to offer scholars and practitioners access to cutting edge science that is grounded in practical applications and address current issues in the U.S and around the world. We will continue to offer high quality and timely reviews of manuscripts. Priority will be given to succinct manuscripts; however, exceptions can be made when justification is provided by authors, for topics that require greater length. School Psychology had a name change in 2019! Consistent increases in annual submissions over several years resulted in the move to offering 6 issues per year necessitating that School Psychology Quarterly be changed to School Psychology.Shane Jimerson School Psychology Review: BE THE CHANGE is our 2020 vision for SPR as posted at NASPonline.org (SPR is the official journal of NASP -- the largest association of school psychologists in the world). BE THE CHANGE is apropos for SPR considering that authors should look forward to the following changes:

  • the partnership with Routledge / Taylor and Francis as the publisher of SPR (for instance, manuscripts accepted for publication will now be featured online first within 30 days),
  • the increased size and breadth of expertise represented among the incoming leadership team (including the range of topics and methodologies relevant to school psychology),
  • expanded Editorial Advisory Board of 130 practitioners and faculty members (including colleagues who will focus their reviews on Methods and Analyses),
  • a new Student Editorial Board to prepare and include the next generation of school psychologists in peer review,
  • the commitment to providing high quality and timely reviews (constructive reviews and decisions within 30 days of submission),
  • the focus on advancing science to inform practice and policy,
  • an opportunity to publish in a journal with increasing reach (over 20,000 practicing school psychologists, over 1,000 graduate educators, over 1,000 leaders across all 50 states, over 1,000 graduate students, in addition to institutional library subscriptions and online indexes),
  • the emphasis on advancing diversification of school psychology, (featuring high-quality scholarship that includes participants from diverse groups, geographic regions, cultural, and marginalized or underrepresented and underserved groups (e.g., LGBQ, transgender, homeless, immigrant-origin, early career, and students),
  • feature scholarship from related disciplines (including education, special education, as well as educational, developmental, counseling, child-clinical, pediatric, community, and family psychology)
  • further emphasis on promoting dissemination of articles (including NASP, T&F, social media, videos, etc.), and
  • special topic sections addressing new frontiers in school psychology (including open calls for all authors to submit their manuscripts for review and consideration).

Craig Albers Journal of School Psychology: I had the good fortune of serving the better part of the past 10 years as an Associate Editor for JSP and have been even more fortunate to have almost all of the AEs continuing in their roles moving forward. Given this stability, I am not envisioning any major changes moving forward – but check back with me in a year! The constantly evolving publishing landscape (e.g., open access, replication) requires that academic journals also evolve, thus one of my responsibilities is to continue positioning the journal in such a way to best disseminate scholars’ work not only for the present, but also in the future. Even without major changes, we will continue to look for ways to further strengthen the journal, enhance efficiencies, and facilitate and increase the reach and impact of the manuscripts published in JSP.JSP’s goals are not changing; the journal will strive to continue publishing the highest quality research that advances the science of school psychology. We will continue publishing empirical articles on research and practices relevant to psychological and behavioral processes in school settings, including research on intervention mechanisms and approaches; schooling effects on the development of social, cognitive, mental-health, and achievement-related outcomes; assessment; and consultation.Question 2: Which topics/themes, populations, and methodologies will you emphasize?Robin Codding School Psychology: School Psychology has a long commitment to publishing high quality manuscripts on a breadth of topics that are relevant to the field and represent the variety of settings, clients, and services that school psychologists engage in. Submissions from scholars and practitioners who engage in research in school psychology and related fields with a focus on promoting the educational, psychological, health and mental health services of children and youth, are encouraged. We encourage submissions that emphasize cross-national and cross-cultural topics as well as elucidate educational disparities. We hope to see submissions that address implementation of feasible, usable, culturally and contextually relevant evidence-based practices and their sustainability. We have four different manuscript submission types. The standard type that School Psychology has always offered is the empirical article. We also offer author guidelines for brief reports, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as advances in research methods. As part of the Open Science movement, authors will generate brief impact statements that summarize each study’s findings for a general audience to increase dissemination and usage of research results. We are also encouraging submission of replication studies and high-quality studies that describe null findings. We are committed to publishing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies.Shane Jimerson School Psychology Review: SPR will emphasize empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, single-case), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and other forms of scholarship that inform prevention, intervention, and support strategies that promote the social, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, mental health, and academic development of all children, youth, and their families. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of important topics will be a particular emphasis SPR in the next few years. All authors are encouraged to submit their scholarship to SPR. SPR will feature high-quality scholarship that includes participants from diverse groups, geographic regions, cultural, and marginalized or underrepresented and underserved groups (e.g., LGBQ, transgender, homeless, immigrant-origin). SPR will embrace scholarship focusing on diversity considerations, social justice, and diverse populations will be emphasized in general articles as well as in timely special topic sections featuring contemporary science.Craig Albers Journal of School Psychology: Let me start by saying this: high quality research is valued, whether it be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. If the manuscript (a) addresses a topic connected to the science of school psychology, (b) utilizes appropriate methodologies and analyses to answer the research questions, and (c) is well written, then three critical boxes are checked for submitting that manuscript to JSP. So, the issue isn’t what methodologies will be emphasized, but rather whether the appropriate methodologies and analytic approaches were utilized. JSP continues to welcome submissions utilizing a variety of methodologies.As mentioned earlier, the journal’s goals are not changing as JSP will continue publishing empirical articles relevant to the science of school psychology; because of this, the quantity and quality of submissions are the primary driving force as to what is published within JSP. With that being said, we must continue to push for more research examining issues surrounding underrepresented groups – broadly defined – and equity. One way to facilitate more research is to increase recognition of these issues, and publishing work in this area increases this recognition. Consequently, getting these manuscripts published, whether in JSP or other professional journals, is critical.  JSP remains committed to advancing our understanding of these issues and we strongly encourage you to consider submitting your work in these areas to JSP.Special issues provide an avenue for bringing additional attention to current and emerging issues, and moving forward, JSP will continue to publish special issues. Special issues are also one way where we can really draw attention to research with students from underrepresented backgrounds, so we will be working on developing one or more special issues in this area. Andy Garbacz, who has served as a JSP AE since 2014, has agreed to serve as a Senior Associate Editor and will help facilitate special issue development. If you have an interest in exploring a possible special issue, by all means, please let Andy, any of our AEs, or me know as we would love to explore it more with you, support its development, and eventually see it in publication.Question 3. What advice do you have for authors to determine whether their work is a good fit for the journal?Robin Codding School Psychology: School Psychology has a wide casting net and audience as the official Division 16 journal of the American Psychological Association (https://apadivision16.org/publications/school-psychology-quarterly/ ). This includes APA Author Features such as the Journals Dialogue Podcast for early career scholars and opportunities to be featured in the Article Spotlight.I recommend that authors become very familiar with the official journal website. It is helpful for authors to attend to the call for papers to identify the scope of content the journal publishes. School Psychology also advertises calls for special topics on the website with the goal of highlighting work in a particular area. It is useful if authors familiarize themselves with the editorial review board members to find individuals with areas of expertise that match the content and methodology of their study. General author guidelines as well as guidelines for each manuscript type are available on the website and provide specific recommendations for manuscript formatting and fit. I think it is a good idea to read one or two published articles representing a manuscript type to get a true sense of the journal expectations and visualize what the final production looks like. Finally, authors should feel welcome to reach out directly to me, via email, to discuss manuscript fit with the School Psychology.Shane Jimerson School Psychology Review: Regarding advice for authors to evaluate goodness of fit with SPR -- If your scholarship is innovative, high quality, aims to advance science, inform practice and/or policy, or has particular relevance to help support the increasingly diverse children and families in the United States, and you want to receive high quality feedback within 30 days, then SPR is a great journal for you to submit your scholarship. Colleagues are encouraged to visit the SPR website, which includes published articles, aims and scope for the journal, instructions for authors, and the manuscript submission portal. We also welcome pre-submission inquiries, so email us. We encourage early career colleagues to join us, to – BE THE CHANGE – and submit your scholarship to SPR.Craig Albers Journal of School Psychology: It probably goes without saying that reviewing the journal’s description and the past 2-3 years of publications within a specific journal will give you a really good idea as to the types of topics and methodologies that the journal tends to publish. However, the cautionary note with this approach is that depending on your work, it is possible that the journal hasn’t previously received any submissions similar to yours, whether that is because your work is innovative, groundbreaking, or in an area where others simply have not been conducting research. Thus, in addition to reviewing information provided by the journal, I strongly encourage you to reach out to the journal’s editor or one of the journal’s associate editors and simply discuss with these individuals. As a former AE and now editor, I truly enjoy communicating with authors who are trying to determine if JSP may be the best home for their work.Thank you to each editor for taking the time to respond to each question.What tactics do you use to decide where to send your work? Share your tips and tricks below!

Read More
Publishing, Research, Promotion & Tenure Publishing, Research, Promotion & Tenure

Publishing Open Access Research as Early Career Scholars

by Bryn Harris, University of Colorado Denver; Ryan Farmer, Oklahoma State University, & Sally Grapin, Montclair State UniversityThe landscape of Open Access (OA) research has changed enormously over the past decades and is gaining visibility and impact across all fields of study. Researchers in the field of school psychology can benefit from learning more about OA publication opportunities as these emergent venues grow in popularity. While there are challenges to OA publications, there are also numerous benefits. The authors of this post reached out to three OA experts help us better understand the implications for early career school psychology researchers. Our panelists include: Clarke Iakovakis, Scholarly Services Librarian at Oklahoma State University, Shea Swauger, Head of Researcher Support Services at the Auraria Library at the University of Colorado Denver, and Dory Rosenberg, English & Psychology Library Liaison for the Merrill-Cazier Library at Utah State University. We asked them to define OA research and publications, ground OA within the field of school psychology, and provide guidance for distinguishing reputable OA journals from predatory ones.What is the definition of an OA publication?Dory Rosenberg: Peter Suber, one of the foremost leaders and experts on OA, defines OA as literature that is “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” For more info on OA, I’d suggest checking out Dr. Suber’s overview at the following link: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm. Also, for a media option, PHD Comics has a great YouTube video that defines OA and reviews the history of this model.Shea Swauger: I like SPARC’s (2019) definition of OA: OA is the free, immediate, online availability of research articles combined with the rights to use these articles fully in the digital environment. I’ll add that the ‘free’ part means at minimum free to the person reading it. Some kinds of OA make the author, their institution, or grant funder pay the publisher to make an article OA. Other kinds of OA are free end-to-end.Clarke Iakovakis: OA (OA) journal publishers deliver peer-reviewed research articles online and free of charge to readers. Whereas subscription-based publishers require payment in exchange for access—typically paid and provided by libraries—OA publishers fund their operations in other ways, including charging authors article processing charges (APCs) for articles accepted for publication. Several OA publishers do not charge APCs, instead covering costs through subsidies by universities, libraries, funders, governments, non-profit organizations, and academic societies, or through other funding models.OA means anyone can read the journal; it does not mean that anyone can publish in the journal. OA journals earn prestige the same way all journals do: through the quality of their content and the expertise of their authors, editors, and reviewers. Reputation takes time to accrue, and OA is relatively new. The large, commercial, subscription-based publishers have been in the field for several decades, and are often contracted by respected academic societies to publish their journals.The proportion of research articles available OA has dramatically increased (H Piwowar et al., 2018) over the last two decades. OA publishing has emerged as a viable and sustainable means of disseminating peer-reviewed research, as indicated by the thousands of reputable and high-quality OA journals. There is, however, substantial variation in the number of established OA journals between and within disciplines, with many more in STEM fields than social sciences, humanities, and the arts. The growth of OA is a result of the advocacy and work of many thousands of researchers, funders, librarians, and citizens from across the world from the mid-1990s.OA publishers generally permit authors to retain their copyright, and publish the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license, which allows both authors and readers to share the work without fear of infringing copyright. In contrast, subscription-based publishers typically require authors to transfer copyright to them exclusively, using that legal protection to create an artificial scarcity and restrict downstream dissemination and reuse, even for authors themselves.Philosopher and OA advocate Peter Suber sums the issue up well in two separate quotes:

  • “The idea of OA is to stop thinking of knowledge as a commodity to meter out to deserving customers, and to start thinking of it as a public good, especially when it is given away by its authors, funded with public money, or both.”
  • “Publishers deserve to be paid for the value they add. But it doesn’t follow that they deserve to control access or that they deserve a package of exclusive rights that bars author-initiated OA”

How do researchers differentiate between reputable OA publications and those that might be predatory? And relatedly, is there a good source you can provide that delineates the types of OA?Dory Rosenberg: It’s important to be aware of what questions to keep in mind when trying to identify a predatory journal, and that predatory journals aren’t just an OA problem - a journal can be predatory whether it publishes via a traditional model or via OA. Below are a handful of questions that the Digital Initiatives Unit at USU Libraries shared with USU faculty and librarians to help develop a greater awareness of predatory journals within the USU community:

  1. Analyze the scope of interest. Is it too wide-ranging? Does it include unrelated fields of study?
  2. Are there spelling and grammatical errors present on the website?
  3. Do they utilize unauthorized and low-quality images on their website?
  4. Does the homepage language target authors and focus on (often rapid) procurement of articles?
  5. Is there a lack of clarity surrounding manuscript submission and processing?
  6. Does the journal advertise rapid publication?
  7. Are the processing and/or publication charges low?

If you can answer yes to several of these questions, then the journal might be predatory.You might also hear OA described as either “Gold OA” or “Green OA.” In understanding the difference between the two, Gold OA is when an author publishes in an OA Journal, and Green OA is when an author archives a version of their work in an OA repository. To learn more about these differences, I’d suggest checking out the “OA journals” and “OA repositories” sections of Peter Suber’s OA overview (2015).Shea Swauger: It’s not always easy to do, and unfortunately, I don’t think there’s ever going to be one stable way to check for validity or authority because what those mean looks different for different disciplines and changes over time. I’ve written about this more here (Swauger, 2017). Using tools like the Directory of OA Journals (DOAJ) can be a good start, but it’s not always going to be perfect. In general, I support using OA journals that don’t have an article processing charge (APC) and who engage in peer review (open peer review if possible). If you have questions about a specific publication, ask a librarian! We love this stuff.Clarke Iakovakis: "Predatory publishers" are scammers; not publishers. They collect article processing charges from authors and post the article PDF to their website, without selectivity, editing, or peer review. If authors catch on, the scammers will often then charge them again to remove it. They seek money only, not to advance knowledge.There is no clear definition (Cobey, Lalu, Skidmore, Ahmadzai, & Moher, 2018) of "predatory," which makes it hard for stakeholders to establish policies on what to avoid. It's also important to differentiate (Eriksson & Helgesson, 2018) between "deceptive" publishers--who lie outright about their quality control, editors, citation metrics, and APCs—and journals that may be run by graduate students and/or scholars with good intentions but less experience and time. Typically, a deceptive predatory publication will have a vaguely-defined and/or unenforced scope, unrealistically rapid editorial and review time, lack of clear information on APCs, or an unknown or falsified editorial board. They also often are not indexed in databases relevant for their field and have an abundance of articles that don’t meet the standards of the discipline.On the one hand, deceptive publishers can undermine public trust in research and can serve to legitimize fraudulent schemes and spurious ideas. On the other hand, research indicates that citations to these publications are minimal (Frandsen, 2017) and restricted mostly to inexperienced researchers. Nevertheless, publishing in such journals can be damaging to the careers of authors; therefore, education and vigilance are called for in evaluating journals for publication. There is no substitute for conducting your own critical analysis, referring to indicators of quality or lack thereof. Below are some useful indicators to use in evaluating journal quality:

Predatory publishers should not be cited to undermine OA publishing nor to bolster subscription-based publishing. In the words of Professor Michael Eisen (2013, October 4), “To suggest…that the problem with scientific publishing is that OA enables internet scamming is like saying that the problem with the international finance system is that it enables…wire transfer scams.” There are larger issues contributing to the phenomenon, including pressure to publish, academic gatekeeping, and the overestimation of pre-publication peer-review in itself as a sole and sufficient validation of quality.There is an enormous literature on OA. I include three excellent reviews below:

How do you recommend that researchers in school psychology learn more about OA journals in the field?Dory Rosenberg: The DOAJ is an independent database of OA journals and it can be a useful way to learn about different OA journal options. The DOAJ doesn’t have school psychology listed as a specific subject area, but it does include a variety of psychology and social sciences content. Many involved in the OA realm are often also involved in social media, and being aware of what’s happening on Twitter or other social media avenues can be a useful way to learn about OA conversations in psychology, and academic disciplines more broadly.Shea Swauger: You could check DOAJ (see above), library guides, request a consultation with a librarian, or see if your advisor or department chair knows much about them.Clarke Iakovakis: In addition to keeping up with research in your field, seek out research about publishing in your field. For instance, a superb article reviewing OA to education research, including obstacles and opportunities, was published last year in Educational Researcher entitled “Changing the Default to Support OA to Education Research” (Roehrig, Soper, Cox, & Colvin, 2018).The authors argue, “Despite the many benefits of OA and policy initiatives to encourage it, OA is still underutilized in education research: The majority of high-ranked education journals are not available via OA, and [author self-archiving] practices are neither widespread nor well understood.” Nevertheless, the role of authors and editors involves fulfilling our shared responsibilities as stewards of the academic record, asserting greater control over the rights to our work, taking an interest in how our scholarship is disseminated (and how we can broaden its impact), and pushing ourselves to question the status quo prescribed by commercial publishers. By embracing and acting on these principles, we perform a valuable service to the academy, insisting on the broadest possible readership for our work and contributing to the collective change that will eventually lead our colleagues, editors, and scholarly associations to adopt more open research practices.Another insightful article surveying OA in the field of education was published earlier this year in SAGE Open by Phillips (2019): “Readers and Authors of Educational Research: A Study of Research Output on K-12 Education Policy.” The author examined the proportion of articles in ERIC available OA, and the ideological nature of the work. She found that that “65% of the journal literature conducted by scholars was locked behind paywalls,” and 25% of the “freely available reports in ERIC are produced by organizations with a decidedly neoliberal or free-market perspective.” The article closes with a quote from an exasperated high school teacher: “If scholars are doing educational research, why would they publish it where teachers can’t even read it?”Spend some time reviewing the set of education journals indexed in the Directory of OA Journals. See also this list of OA educational psychology journals maintained by the SCImago research group.Talk to a librarian. Librarians specialize in discovering research, and can often point you to tools and resources for effectively finding publications. Some universities employ scholarly communications and/or copyright librarians who can help you review your publication contracts to ensure you are retaining your right to self-archive. They may also manage an institutional repository to help you disseminate your work.Are you aware of any differences between OA journals and traditional journals with respect to the review and publication process? If so, can you please describe them?Dory Rosenberg: Instead of thinking about OA and traditional journals as separate entities, I think it can be useful to approach both with the same questions. For example, when considering a journal for publication, questions to consider could be: is it well known for quality research, does it state clear guidelines, and is the peer review process understandable?Shea Swauger: Honestly, it’s a mixed bag for both kinds of publishing. There are some traditional and OA journals who have solid peer review processes, relatively quick turn arounds, and policies that support author rights. On the flip side, there are traditional and OA journals who engage in negligent or discriminatory peer review practices, can takes years for answers, and take away every author right possible under the law. The publishing model of a journal doesn’t indicate its quality. I support the use of embargos when there are issues of privacy that are time-sensitive. Otherwise, most publisher-mandated embargoes are just a way for them to make more money by disallowing competition.Clarke Iakovakis: In terms of the review process, OA journals generally tend to follow the same process as subscription-based journals. There have, however, been some experimentations with new models of peer review. These have included open peer review (both anonymous and credited), review for soundness only, publication of referee reports, post-publication review and commentary, and some others. Though these models are not restricted to OA, both are related to shifts towards open scholarship broadly speaking. An excellent review of these can be read in the article, “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.”An OA journal does not necessarily have a faster review process, but it does make the article openly available immediately upon publication, without embargo. Also, as OA publishers generally permit authors to retain their copyright and publish articles under the terms of Creative Commons licenses, they tend to have rather liberal self-archiving policies. This means repositories have the right to archive the article, providing another layer of preservation and access for future readers.What are the reasons you might recommend publishing in OA journals over traditional journals?Dory Rosenberg: OA journals may not have the same traditional impact (like impact factors) that many universities’ promotion and tenure committees look for, but the greater and real impact of OA publishing is that your research and work can reach wider audiences. For me, publishing OA also has an ethical value in that when we publish openly, we are reducing barriers to accessibility for those who aren’t in privileged and funded university systems or countries.Shea Swauger: Firstly, publishing in an OA journal means that more people can access your work. This is especially important for people who aren’t affiliated with an academic institution to get access through their library or who’s library can’t afford access to a closed journal. There are millions of people around the world trying to do research but who have limited access to the scholarship in their area. OA means they can read your work, which can help them do theirs, which means more people contribute to research and that’s good for everyone.Having more people access your work can also be helpful to you if you’re trying to show that your research is impactful. When you control for other factors, OA and Open Data practices tend to increase the number of citations an article gets, which makes sense as more people can read it.Lastly, most research is funded by the public through taxes and tuition, which means that we shouldn’t have to pay for it twice in order to read it. The publishing pipeline is scandalous when you lay it out. Research is mostly publicly funded, is conducted and written by the people in higher education, is reviewed and edited by other people in higher education, is then submitted to publishing companies that essentially just host websites, and then sell our own work back to us with a 36% profit margin (Buranyi, 2017). That’s a higher rate of return than Apple, Google, or Amazon. OA is an alternative system that is more equitable and fiscally sustainable.Clarke Iakovakis: In short, greater access to research is likely to lead to better-informed research, which is likely to lead to better research in general. The primary direct beneficiaries are students and faculty at other colleges and universities that cannot afford subscriptions to a large set of journals. This includes, but is not restricted to, small universities or those in the Global South. Given that serials prices keep increasing (Bosch, Albee, & Henderson, 2018)—substantially—while library budgets are often flat or decreasing, even the largest research universities have gaps in their collections.Authors may also benefit. The magnitude varies by discipline, but a substantial number of studies (Lewis, 2018) have found some association between OA publishing and increased citation counts—but this is still an emerging field of research (Daniel, Nicolás, & Henk, 2018). Nevertheless, OA articles are undoubtedly more visible, and easier for those who are interested in your research to read. Authors also benefit from retaining their rights and controlling reuse, including the right to distribute the work to colleagues and students, translate it to other languages, use it in conference presentations, and self-archive it.There is really no restriction on who can benefit from greater access to research. Practicing school psychologists, teachers, schoolchildren, social workers, journalists, Wikipedia contributors, politicians, voters, and more. Essentially, “public access to scientific research makes all our lives better: it makes us healthier, better governed and better educated; it lets us live in a cleaner environment, a more civilized society and a healthier economy.” (whoneedsaccess.org).Some funders, both public and private, recognize the value of OA and require publications to be made available. The Institute of Education Sciences (2016) Policy Regarding Public Access to Research is worth quoting at length (see also the Grantee & Contractor Requirements FAQ):The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is committed to improving the public’s access to the direct results of Federally funded research. By facilitating access to findings presented in peer-reviewed scholarly publications as well as the scientific data used to generate the findings, IES supports the scientific process and maximizes the impact of its investments…Through successful implementation of this policy, IES intends to increase researchers’ opportunities for collaboration and scientific discovery, thereby increasing the volume of research that addresses the largest challenges in education.Grantees and contractors must submit the electronic version of their final manuscripts to ERIC upon acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal or as a final deliverable by the Department. The author's final manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for publication (or delivery) and includes all modifications from the peer (or program office) review process. ERIC makes citation of submitted studies available shortly after submission. ERIC makes the final manuscript available 12 months after the publication of the article, unless the publisher allows for earlier display. Grantees and contractors should ensure that publishing agreements stemming from IES-funded research, including copyright assignments with publishers or other third parties, are consistent with the requirements of this policy.What is the impact of hybrid journals (i.e. traditional journals that permit authors to pay article processing charges to make their individual article OA) on university libraries?Dory Rosenberg: Hybrid journals are a great stepping stone in contributing toward OA. However, since libraries pay subscription fees for hybrid journals, they are still part of the same publication loop where researchers and libraries are in a tug of war with publishers over rising subscription costs. I think it’s important that researchers pay attention to what’s happening in the news around publisher negotiations and events (for example, the University of California’s recent break with Elsevier), so that researchers can be savvy in addressing change and demand in their professional associations and in their own research practices.Shea Swauger: Not much. I mean, they’re theoretically good for users who don’t have to pay for access, but the publishers don’t reduce their prices for us to buy them. I’m not a fan of hybrid OA journals. They feel inherently disingenuous to me. Like, if they really cared about access, they’d just go full OA. I get the sense that they want to seem progressive and flexible for the OA enthusiasts but they still want to make a profit and this model seems to work for that end. In the meantime, researchers end up paying very expensive APCs, often thousands of dollars, out of small budgets intended for getting their research off the ground.Clarke Iakovakis: Hybrid OA allows for subscription-based publishers to charge both subscription fees as well as APCs, in a model that has been characterized as “double dipping”—though select publishers will offset an institution’s subscription fees according to the APCs expenditures of that institution’s authors. Some academic libraries have developed “OA funds” to pay APCs on behalf of authors, though many of these libraries will not fund hybrid APCs. Similarly, some research funders will pay APCs for articles resulting from their funding to be published OA, on the condition that they are published in fully OA journals, not hybrid. OA advocates seeking a future wherein all research articles are made available generally see hybrid OA as entrenching subscription-based publishing. Additionally, as described below in question 7, the hybrid APC cost is significantly higher than APCs for fully OA journals.There is an alternative for scholars who want to publish their article in a subscription-based journal while still providing OA to it. The majority of publishers allow authors to provide OA to the accepted version of their manuscript (i.e. the version following peer review but prior to typesetting into the final version)(B. C. Björk, Laakso, Welling, & Paetau, 2014). They may upload it to their personal website, or to an institutional repository. This is sometimes referred to as “self-archiving.” I would encourage everyone reading this to review your publication contract to see if this is permitted and, if so, to exercise your right to share your research. You can also check the SHERPA/RoMEO database of publisher access policies.What types of fees can researchers expect when they publish in open-access journals? What advice do you have to researchers who want to pursue OA but don’t have funding to do so?Dory Rosenberg: Researchers might need to pay an Article Processing Charge (APCs) when publishing in OA journals, and depending on the journal they can be anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, or more. APCs are used to cover the publishing costs of the article, which can include work like editorial costs, and other administrative tasks. One thing to note though is that APCs (for traditionally published journals) have been around in many of the sciences for decades, so the APC model is not new. Also, while many OA publications use the APC model, almost two-thirds of the journals in the Directory of OA Journals do not charge APCs.While finding funding for APCs can be daunting, there are useful strategies to consider. First, make sure to keep OA costs in mind when applying for grants and when thinking about developing your project’s data management plan. Also, check to see if your university or library offers an OA fund and consider negotiating before you sign your contracts. For example, you could negotiate for Green OA; alternatively, some journals will consider waiving or reducing fees for student authors or authors in developing countries.Shea Swauger: I’ve seen APCs ranging from $500 to $6,000, but I can’t distinguish a pattern yet by discipline. Other people might have, but I haven’t looked. I’d recommend submitting to an OA journal that doesn’t charge an APC if possible. If you can’t find one you like, there are often closed journals that allow you to submit a copy of your article to a repository (like the Auraria Institutional Repository) which is fully OA. You can use a tool called Sherpa/Romeo to check and see if your publisher allows this, also that information is usually buried in the author submission pages of the publisher website. Often at universities there are research officers (e.g., University of Colorado Denver’s Research Office) that can provide grants to cover the APC, so definitely check there before you pay.Clarke Iakovakis: According to work published by B. Björk and Solomon (2014), average APCs are as follows:

  • Full OA journal–published by “non-subscription” publishers: 1,418 USD
  • Full OA journal –published by “subscription” publishers: 2,097 USD
  • Hybrid journal–published by “subscription” publishers: 2,727 USD

The Open APC initiative provides some raw data on fees paid for OA by universities and funders, and this APC Briefing Paper (Guy & Holl, 2016) provides a good introduction to the concept and practice. Solomon and Björk (2012) found that authors paid APCs themselves only 12% of the time, with funders paying the cost 59% of the time and universities 24%. A majority of publishers (Lawson, 2015) offer fee waivers for authors who cannot obtain funding via funders or their institutions.If you do opt to publish in a subscription journal, exercise your right to self-archive the accepted version of your manuscript, either on your own website, an institutional repository, or in the ERIC database (see above question 6, and ERIC’s FAQ on author submissions).If you could predict the future of OA journals, what do you think it would look like?Dory Rosenberg: I think negotiation and mediation skills are crucial to the future of OA. Scholarly communication, and the creation of research in general, revolves around the interactions of many stakeholders, and OA advocates are well-skilled in balancing the needs of these different stakeholders in designing policies and collaborations. However, as evident in recent breaks between library systems and publishers, negotiation can only get us so far.One thing we can do to contribute to a culture of OA is to think about how our daily work practices can have greater impact. As a small example, instead of only using traditional journal articles as class readings, you could also assign high-quality OA publications.Shea Swauger: I’m an optimist, so I hope that researchers, colleges, universities, and libraries will unite to advocate for open scholarship, including OA, to become the default practice. This will include building infrastructure to support OA publishing, review, dissemination, and preservation. I want see a community-owned, community run, not-for-profit publishing ecosystem that values openness, equity, and transparency in research.Clarke Iakovakis: In widely publicized news, earlier this year the University of California (UC) system chose not to renew its contract with Elsevier. UC sought to pay for both access to Elsevier articles, and for all articles published by UC corresponding authors in Elsevier journals to be published OA, but an agreement could not be reached. This bears some similarity to an agreement successfully concluded between Wiley and all German universities, called Projekt DEAL. It is yet to be seen whether such “publish and read” agreements will become more widespread.The Plan S initiative in Europe is a movement to require publications resulting from research funded by public grants be published in OA journals or made available in OA repositories. While some funders in the United States have moved in that direction—most notably the National Institutes of Health—many have yet to implement and follow through on compliance.It is also important to point out the widespread piracy of scholarly research (Himmelstein et al., 2018). Publisher paywalls do not represent the barriers they once did. As stated in the article just linked, piracy “is not the answer, but it is a wake-up call...There is one clear avenue available for those publishers, librarians and researchers who wish to make the results of scholarship as widely available as possible but without resorting to breaking copyright law, and that is OA.”The current scholarly publishing system has changed dramatically since the Second World War (Buranyi, 2017) and it will continue evolving. OA is a part of a larger movement towards greater access to research and teaching resources, enabled by digital distribution mechanisms, led by grassroots advocacy, and supported by institutions to varying degrees. This includes open educational resources (OER), open peer review, open data, open software, and open & reproducible research. Tools such as the Unpaywall browser extension demonstrate the clear value of seamless OA and show that it is increasing and showing no signs of slowing down.As researchers, funders, and universities see the value of providing access to a range of scholarly contributions beyond the peer reviewed article, the behaviors, extrinsic/intrinsic incentives, and reward structures should theoretically shift in turn. There are multiple intervening variables, including overdependence on citation metrics as proxies for quality, overreliance on university rankings, and overemphasis on quantity of publications. Given that academics do the work of researching, reviewing, and editing the work without earning royalties for publishing, it makes logical sense to provide the work at no charge; but there are clearly a number of other factors at play here. The Society for the Study of School Psychology is providing its readers a service in asking this series of excellent questions, and I appreciate you providing me the venue for answering them.ConclusionIn school psychology, we are often concerned with research that impacts the lives of students; however, practicing school psychologists struggle to access research pertinent to their day-to-day activities (Kratochwill, 2007). OA publishing and the use of repositories for accepted versions of manuscripts may provide one avenue for addressing this barrier. Additionally, research conducted thus far demonstrates that articles published in OA outlets or on author’s repositories are cited just as much or more than traditionally published articles (Lewis, 2018; H. Piwowar et al., 2018). However, navigating OA may be challenging due to APCs (B. Björk & Solomon, 2014; Guy & Holl, 2016; Lawson, 2015; Solomon & Björk, 2012) and (potentially unfounded) concerns about predatory journals (Berger & Cirasella, 2015a; Eriksson & Helgesson, 2018; Frandsen, 2017; Houghton & Houghton, 2018). Additionally, navigating the various levels of open access (B. C. Björk et al., 2014; Daniel et al., 2018; SPARC, 2019; Suber, 2015) may be daunting at first, but given the potential benefits and calls from education researchers and organizations (Roehrig et al., 2018; Sciences, 2016), moving toward OA practices, including self-archiving, may greatly reduce barriers for researchers and practitioners in school psychology.To our readers: Have you published in OA journals? What were your experiences? What other questions do you have about OA publications?ReferencesBerger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015a). Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & research libraries news, 76(3), 132-135.Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015b). Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers. 76(3), 4. doi:10.5860/crln.76.3.9277Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2014). Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. Retrieved from London, UK: https://www.fwf.ac.at/fileadmin/files/Dokumente/Downloads/Dev_Effective_Market_OA_Article_Processing_Charges.pdfBjörk, B. C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 237-250.Bosch, S., Albee, B., & Henderson, K. (2018). Death by 1,000 cuts | Periodicals price survey 2018. Library Journal. Retrieved from https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=death-1000-cuts-periodicals-price-survey-2018Buranyi, S. (2017). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-scienceCobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A.,, & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. . F1000Research, 7:1001. doi:https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2Daniel, T.-S., Nicolás, R.-G., & Henk, M. (2018). Disentangling gold open-access.Eisen, M. (2013, October 4). Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting”.  Retrieved from https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2018). Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181-183. doi:10.1002/leap.1135Frandsen, T. F. (2017). Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics, 113. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-xGuy, M., & Holl, A. (2016). Briefing Paper: Article Processing Charges. Retrieved from http://pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/resource/PASTEUR4OA_Briefing%20Paper_APCs_FINAL.pdfHimmelstein, D. S., Romero, A. R., Levernier, J. G., Munro, T. A., McLaughlin, S. R., Tzovaras, B. G., & Greene, C. S. (2018). Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. eLife, 7, e32822.Houghton, F., & Houghton, S. (2018). "Blacklists" and "whitelists": a salutary warning concerning the prevalence of racist language in discussions of predatory publishing. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 106(4), 527-530. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.490Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Preparing psychologists for evidence-based school practice: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. American psychologist, 62(8), 829-843. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.829Lawson, S. (2015). Fee Waivers for Open Access Journals. Publications, 3(3), 155-167. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/3/3/155Lewis, C. L. (2018). The open access citation advantage: Does it exist and what does it mean for libraries? Information Technology and Libraries, 37(3). doi:10.6017/ital.v37i3.10604Phillips, M. (2019). Readers and Authors of Educational Research: A Study of Research Output on K-12 Education Policy. SAGE Open, 9(2). doi:10.1177/2158244019853901Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., B, N., . . . S, H. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6:e4375. doi:https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., . . . Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375-e4375. doi:10.7717/peerj.4375Roehrig, A. D., Soper, D., Cox, B. E., & Colvin, G. P. (2018). Changing the default to support open access in education research. Educational researcher, 47(7), 465-473. doi:10.3102/0013189x18782974Sciences, I. f. E. (2016). IES policy regarding public access to research. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/funding/researchaccess.aspSolomon, D. J., & Björk, B. C. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 98-107.SPARC. (2019). Open access. Retrieved from https://sparcopen.org/open-access/Suber, P. (2015). Open access overview. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/oa-overviewSwauger, S. (2017). Open access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”. 2017, 78(11). doi:10.5860/crln.78.11.603The@accessworkinggroup. (n.d). We have a problem. Retrieved from https://whoneedsaccess.org/

Read More
Publishing, Writing, Conferences Networking, Promotion & Tenure Publishing, Writing, Conferences Networking, Promotion & Tenure

Post-convention productivity: Turning presentations into publications

By Katie Maki (Ball State University) and Ethan Van Norman (Lehigh University)You’ve returned home from NASP. You’re likely experiencing a range of emotions. In the back of your mind you have a creeping sense of anxiety as you take a look at your inbox for the first time in nearly a week. At this point it is great to take a step back and acknowledge a major accomplishment. You presented your research at a national conference! Although almost every university expects presentations at a national conference to demonstrate scholarly productivity as part of promotion and tenure decisions, the reality is that the priority for demonstrating scholarly productivity is the publication of your research in peer-refereed journals. As such, the purpose of this post is to offer advice to carry forward the momentum from NASP to transform those poster and paper presentations into peer reviewed journal articles.Curb Your Enthusiasm If you are like us, you left the NASP convention feeling professionally energized (although perhaps physically exhausted) and excited about new research projects and collaborations. Many of us spent the week networking, connecting with other scholars in the field, and attending thought-provoking sessions at the convention. These connections and experiences likely left you ready to jump into new project conceptualizations. There is a hardly a better feeling, perhaps especially as an early career scholar. Therefore, it may sound counterintuitive when we suggest that you consider pumping the brakes on diving fully into new projects at the expense of your existing projects. This is not to say that you should drop your new project ideas. On the contrary, record your new and exciting ideas by outlining your concept and any details you have already worked out. Consider setting up a meeting with colleagues in the next month or so. Then, switch your energy back to the projects on which you presented at NASP but have not yet written up. As we stated before, even if you are not at a research-intensive university, publications in peer- refereed journals are likely still part of how you will be evaluated for promotion and tenure. Thus, you want to be sure that you not only engage in research, but that your research projects come to completion through publication.Work Smarter Not Harder The good news is, you have already done much of the work for writing new manuscripts. Capitalize on the work and effort you already put into your projects by using the projects you presented at NASP as a foundation for manuscript preparation. If you presented studies at the NASP convention, you already outlined the method and results sections for your presentation that can then be translated into text for the study manuscript. Then, revisit the proposal you submitted for the convention back in June to begin writing the introduction of the manuscript. Your proposal should have included a rationale for, and purpose of, the study so take the arguments you already made in your proposal and expand upon them to develop the manuscript introduction. Finally, you likely already outlined implications and other sections of a discussion section for your presentation, which can be expounded for the manuscript discussion. Do not recreate your project for the manuscript; use the work you already put into the project to turn it into a publishable manuscript.Using Feedback Meaningfully  Finally, your presentation likely included a Q&A portion. Use information gleaned from this experience to improve your paper. That is, capitalize on audience feedback and ideas that may have arisen while preparing for the presentation while the information is still fresh. Was there a recurring theme that audience members noted as a strength? Emphasize that aspect of your investigation in the paper. Were there multiple questions about the methodology you used? Revisit and clarify what you did in the manuscript. Were audience members all too eager to point limitations of your project? Get out in front of potential reviewer comments by strengthening your paper or identifying said issues in the limitations section of your manuscript. Given that NASP is largely a practitioner-oriented conference, if your presentation for lack of better terms “fell flat,” consider journal outlets that have a less applied focus (see previous blog post on how to identify appropriate journals for your research). If your presentation lends to a practitioner-orientated publication outlet, consider turning your presentation into a manuscript for the Communique or other similar outlet, particularly if such outlets are appropriate for your promotion and tenure requirements.Planning Ahead Although hindsight may be 20/20, in our experience the best strategy to ensure that conference paper presentations do not stay conference paper presentations is prevention. We have found that submitting the paper you will be presenting for publication prior to the conference circumvents the nasty problem of post-conference procrastination. You will likely be playing catch-up in the weeks following a conference (responding to emails, prepping for a class on a shortened schedule, etc.). Similarly, you may be experiencing conference fatigue where the last thing you want to think about is the paper presentation you have spent substantial time prepping last month. Submitting a project for publication prior to the conference may also alleviate anxiety in having an idea “scooped” while presenting your project to peers. Submitting your work before the conference will also help “prime” you so you are not scrambling to finish a project before the convention or put together your slide show a few days (or hours) before you are set to present.You Can Do It! We hope that you found these pointers useful. A major challenge in academia is that we receive few and infrequent external prompts to encourage us to engage in the behaviors necessary to achieve promotion and tenure. In turn, we must be able to prioritize those things that are most influential in achieving our goals, sometimes at the expense of immediate competing demands. Although carving out time to write immediately after a conference may seem counterintuitive, in many ways it makes sense to strike while the iron is hot. If an email is responded to four hours later than normal, your class lecture has a few less graphics, or the mission statement you were assigned to help refine is a little less eloquent than you would like, all for the sake of preparing your NASP presentation for publication, the world will not stop turning. We promise.Do you have any thoughts about these points? Are there any other strategies you use that we did not mention? Please comment below!

Read More
Publishing, Research, Writing, Promotion & Tenure Publishing, Research, Writing, Promotion & Tenure

"Revise and resubmit"...Now what?

Perspectives on Preparing Your Revised Manuscript from Associate Editors in School PsychologyBy Laura Pendergast, Temple UniversityContributors: Stacy-Ann January, University of South Carolina; Lyndsay Jenkins, Florida State University; Renee Hawkins, University of CincinnatiImagine that you are new author and you are ready to publish. You’ve worked hard to conduct your research and prepare your manuscript. You’ve carefully selected a journal. You’ve followed all of the instructions for publishing in said journal, navigated the online submission portal, and submitted your paper. You’ve waited patiently (or not so patiently) for weeks. Then, all of a sudden, an email from the journal with a subject line that reads “Manuscript Decision” pops into your inbox. You cannot wait any longer! You read the email discreetly (or not so discreetly) while holding your phone under the table during a faculty meeting. With a sigh of relief, you see that your manuscript was not rejected outright. However, it wasn’t accepted either….You received a “Revise and Resubmit.” Now what? If you are an early career scholar, and you recently received a “Revise and Resubmit,” you are in luck! Three Associate Editors from top school psychology journals have teamed up to provide advice for early career scholars on revising and resubmitting their work. Dr. Stacy-Ann January is an Assistant Professor at the University of South Carolina and an Associate Editor at School Psychology Review. Dr. Lyndsay Jenkins is an Assistant Professor at Florida State University and an Associate Editor at the Journal of School Psychology. Dr. Renee Hawkins is a Professor at the University of Cincinnati and an Associate Editor at the Journal of School Psychology. An overview of the steps for revising and resubmitting your work, along with key pieces of advice from each Associate Editor, is provided below.Step 1: Celebrate a little! But recognize that your journey isn’t finished yet. SAJ: First, celebrate a little! I remember feeling a little disappointed when I received my first Revise and Resubmit (R&R). But my mentor reminded me that this decision is typically what one can hope for, as manuscripts are rarely accepted on the first submission. An R&R means that the journal may be interested in publishing your manuscript, but that there are a number of changes you to need make before it is in a potentially publishable form.RH: A ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision suggests that the reviewers and action editor see the potential for your manuscript to make a contribution to the literature, which alone can be reinforcing as it can reaffirm the significance of your research agenda. It is also important to keep in mind that how you respond to the feedback provided on your submission plays a critical role in determining whether or not your manuscript is ultimately accepted. There is no guarantee that a “Revise and Resubmit” will automatically lead to acceptance but if you are thoughtful with your approach to integrating the editorial feedback, you can greatly increase your chances for a positive outcome.Step 2: Read the reviews. Manage your emotional response to critical comments. Be ready to write your response to reviewers using a respectful, appreciative tone and to use the feedback to improve your work.RH: Don’t take the feedback personally. The reviewers aren’t out to get you. They are trying to advance our field by helping improve the quality of manuscripts published in our journals. Avoid being defensive in your responses to reviewer feedback.LJ: Feedback about your work from other researchers is an opportunity to make changes that can improve the quality of your paper.  Though it is tempting to get defensive or upset about the feedback provided, it is important to keep in mind that overall a R&R is good news!!RH: The tone of your response should be respectful. Remember the reviewers have provided a valuable professional service by taking their time to review your manuscript and provide their suggestions for improvements. Your response should reflect that you value their time and ideas, even if you do not agree with everything they have to say.Step 3: Revise the manuscript, and write the point-by-point response letter. In most instances, you should make the changes suggested by reviewers. SAJ: To the extent possible, try to make the changes suggested by the AE and reviewers. In your response letter, detail exactly what you did to address the suggested change. Reviewers may make several suggestions in one numbered comment; be sure to address each of them.RH: Take the feedback in the spirit it was intended – to improve the quality of your manuscript. In this spirit, try to incorporate as much of the feedback as you reasonably can, even if some of the suggested revisions seem unnecessary to you. If a revision does not substantially change the meaning of your manuscript, I would go ahead and make the changes. In my opinion, digging in your heels over feedback that does not impact the overall message and contribution of your manuscript seems to be a waste of energy that could potentially jeopardize the editorial decision on your manuscript.LJ: I would say one of the most common mistakes I see is that authors do not fully address an issue raised by the reviewers.  This mistake is particularly problematic when they say that they have addressed it. For example, an editor may note that References are not in APA style in the initial submission.  Upon resubmitting the manuscript, the authors may say in the response letter that they addressed the APA style issues in the References, but, in fact, many errors are still present. If you say you addressed something, be sure that you actually did address it.RH: It is helpful to reviewers if you describe specifically how and where in the manuscript you made revisions in response to the feedback. For example, rather than responding simply with, “We have incorporated this feedback in the manuscript,” provide a more detailed description of your revision with a statement such as, “On, p. 10, we have added the following paragraph…In many journals, the action editor will act as a filter for the comments provided by individual reviewers. The feedback highlighted by the action editor should be prioritized in your revision. Generally, these are the changes that the action editor thinks are most important for you to make in your revision. Given that the action editor will ultimately recommend to the editor whether or not to publish your work, it is critical that you attend to this feedback.SAJ: The number of revisions that are requested can be daunting. If you’re the lead author, don’t go at a revision alone! Review the suggested revisions and determine how you might engage your co-authors in revising and resubmitting the document.Step 4: Do not ignore feedback. If you choose not to make a suggested change, provide a thorough and respectful rationale explaining why you declined to make the edit. Provide empirical support if applicable. RH: One common mistake that authors make when revising and resubmitting their work is to ignore feedback with which they do not agree.SAJ: If you disagree with a change, you should have a strong rationale for not making it. Thank the reviewer for the comment, and eloquently provide the rationale (supporting your argument with science is always a good idea if you’re able to).RH: If the reviewers make a suggestion that you cannot address (i.e., you don’t have the additional information they are requesting), not only should you explain why you cannot integrate the feedback in your response but also consider raising the issue as a limitation or discussion point in your revised manuscript.LJ: Be nice: It can be easy to slip into a defensive tone when writing these response letters, particularly if you do not agree with some of the reviewer feedback.RH: Don’t use page limitations as a reason not to make a revision. This is a pretty weak excuse for not making a suggested revision. I would err on the side of making the revision as efficiently as possible and explaining to the action editor that, in your effort to be responsive to reviewer feedback, you are over the page limit.SAJ: When preparing your response letter, make it clear and easy to read.Step 5: Follow all instructions for resubmission, and proofread, proofread, proofread!  LJ: You should strive to submit an immaculate manuscript. You should spend a couple hours editing and proofreading before submitting a manuscript and ensure that you are following the journal’s formatting guidelines… Pay special attention to use of headings/subheadings, page numbers, references, and correct use of parenthetical and in-text citations.  Typos, grammar, English language issues, and the misuse of APA guidelines are distractions to the content of the paper!!! Even if you have done THE COOLEST study of all time, it will be rejected if it is poorly written.Follow all resubmission guidelines! Every journal has different guidelines for submitting a revised manuscript. Read the instructions in the editor’s letter very carefully before re-submitting.SAJ: Often when making revisions, you’re adding and deleting text. It is very easy to miss things, as you’ve been entrenched in it for so long. One of the best pieces of advice I got about writing from my mentor was to read my work out loud. I still read every manuscript I author/coauthor out loud before I submit/resubmit it, and I always catch something I previously missed. I also recommend having someone not involved with the writing of the manuscript read it as well.Other points to considerLJ: Though in general a R&R is good news, on occasion you may receive a Reject after submitting revisions. There are a number of reasons why this happens.  First, you may not have appropriately addressed reviewer feedback. Second, new reviewers may have been invited to review the new manuscript and these new reviewers may bring up issues not previously noted. Third, a statistical or methodological consultant may have reviewed the second version of the manuscript and identified problems that were not previously brought up.SAJ: Often, AEs will invite you to contact them with questions about the revision. Feel free to do so, if you have clarifying questions that the AE can address. It is better to ask for clarification regarding a suggested revision than to make an incorrect assumption.ConclusionsIn summary, a decision of “Revise and Resubmit” is something to celebrate – while recognizing that there is more work to be done. When you receive a “Revise and Resubmit,” you receive an important gift along with it: feedback. You have the opportunity to improve your work, and, often, to think about your research in a new way. I can honestly say that every manuscript that I have published is better as the result of peer review. Treat the feedback that you have received as a valuable resource. Respond to the feedback thoroughly and thoughtfully. In many cases, doing so will strengthen your skills as a researcher, improve your manuscript, will put you closer an ultimate decision of “Accept,” and, most importantly, enhance the impact that your research has on the field.Special thanks to Dr. Stacy-Ann January, Dr. Lyndsay Jenkins, and Dr. Renee Hawkins for their important contributions to this post.

Read More
Professional Development, Publishing, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty Professional Development, Publishing, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty

Hunkering Down to Boost Writing Productivity

I am not, nor do I ever anticipate being, one of those people who can or will write every day. As someone who reads (and occasionally writes) on faculty and early career development, and who follows many related listservs and groups, I realize this is regarded as heresy by some, and by their more forgiving acolytes, as an unfortunate and career-stifling dysfunction. Although I certainly appreciate others who’ve called out the performative misery of daily predawn writing and suggested more practical alternatives for daily writing, it just doesn’t work for me. The truth is, I write in large blocks—indeed, the largest uninterrupted blocks I can feasibly manage given the constraints of my energy (read: caffeination), attention span, and competing demands (advising, administration, parenthood, self-care, and so on). This is habitual. I wrote much of my dissertation during a two-week self-imposed sequestration in a dark cubicle in the back of windowless, musty office most other grad students avoided. This would set my habit for the next 15 years, though I can avail myself of much nicer spaces now. When the Minnesota weather allows, students and colleagues know they can often find me on our building’s rooftop deck, feet propped up, earbuds in, wifi off (i.e., no email), and very happily writing with only the occasional eagle overhead to distract me.During the academic year, I write once, maybe twice, a week, though more so in the summer if I strategize appropriately. During some weeks-long stretches of the academic year, I might not write at all, but my research agenda is sustained through meetings with colleagues and students to move emergent or in progress projects forward. This is especially true at the end of the spring semester when advising and administrative duties are heaviest. Since assuming the role of program director, I’ve found concentrated group writing time, what we here have called writing hunkers, to be particularly helpful in shifting back into writing mode and making substantial progress on stalled writing projects. For the past few years, our program has offered at least one hunker per summer for students with faculty leads and participants.What are writing hunkers? Simply, these are concentrated writing days dedicated to the process of preparing manuscripts. All students and faculty are invited, with advanced notice that the ideal hunker project is one for which data collection, analyses, and much of the background reading are done. Writers are encouraged to focus on a single project rather than toggling between multiple ones, and to focus on manuscripts rather than ancillary research products (e.g., presentations, materials, briefs). Generally, our hunkers are scheduled for four consecutive days of 6 to 7 hour blocks. This works well during the summer or other breaks, but regularly scheduled day-long or half-day hunkers throughout the semester or summer can also provide comparable opportunity and support. Sample schedules are provided here.During our hunkers, writers are instructed to plan to be engaged for the full time each day. We try to prevent distractions and other things that might take time away from writing by provide refreshments (coffee, snacks, lunch), reference books, ear plugs, and posted lists of what to do if stumbling upon a writing block. Whenever possible, we arrange for space outside of the building in which our offices and lab space is housed to minimize the likelihood of interruptions. That is, students and faculty alike recognized that if we were easy to find (and basically stationary for the duration of the hunker), it would be all too easy for well-meaning colleagues and students to drop by to ask questions or pull us into friendly chats during breaks, and that this would ultimately undermine our goals for the hunker. We’ve also been fortunate to reserve spaces that allow for each writer to organize their personal worktop to their needs. Some people want to work facing the corner or wall with earplugs in, others facing out the window with music flowing through earbuds. Still others might want to work face to face, the typist across the table spurring dedication to task. Individual tables allow each writer to spread as much or as little paper and books as they like without being concerned about intruding on others’ space.We generally follow the 4-day schedule here. On day one, we set group norms and individual goals, usually using the following form that will anchor each day’s work. Outside of the lunch discussions and afternoon consultation time, the expectation is that everyone will work quietly, avoid internet distractions, and only work on the specified goals. The presence of others creates accountability even though our interactions are limited. If nothing else, no one wants to be caught web surfing by a fellow writer. Each writer takes breaks as needed though, and some use task and time management tools (e.g., pomodoro technique and corresponding apps). At the end of the day we debrief, celebrating progress and troubleshooting challenges.The lunch discussions provide much needed interaction and downtime. Discussion topics are tailored to the needs and preferences of each unique group. Past topics at our hunkers have included general writing strategies, journal selection, peer review process, responding to reviewer feedback, handling rejection, getting over writer’s block, tailoring writing for specific audiences, and effective data presentation. Sometimes we also avail ourselves of various university resources, such as writing consultants who can provide feedback on style and mechanics or lead seminars on dealing with writing blocks. Other great options are inviting speakers from the IRB office or subject librarians to help develop reference skills and research consumerism.I love these writing hunkers and I am consistently pleased with the progress I make. Sure, most of us are wrung out by the end of the day since we’re largely unaccustomed to this intensity of work. Yet it’s also incredibly gratifying. Progress is reinforcing, as is the sense of being in a community of writers. I appreciate that the hunkers provide a space for students and faculty from throughout the program to discuss the writing process and its challenges, publication process, and developing productive writing habits. A common conversation is how to adapt the tools and approaches used in the hunker to our own continued writing practice, both for daily writers and others like me. The warmups and parking downhill exercises are especially valuable to writers of all types because they can be applied by both daily and intermittent writers to support quick transitions back into a writing project after time away. Though I am admittedly not a daily writer, I also appreciate the opportunity to talk openly with students about developing effective writing habits--whatever that means for them--with practice in application of strategies and tools during the hunker and beyond.Do you have ideas to share or questions about how to use writing hunkers to boost your productivity? Comment below or join us for a live chat November 29, 2018 at 1 pm PST/ 3pm CST/ 4pm EST. Sign up here for the chat.

Read More
Publishing, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty Publishing, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty

Manuscript Rejected: Moving Onward and Upward

January 25, 2018

Laura Pendergast, Temple University“Are you done?” my mentor asked patiently. My beautiful manuscript had been rejected… again. My mentor had been listening to me complain for 15 minutes. I was starting a tenure-track position and needed to publish. I had conducted my analyses using the most current statistical techniques. I had painstakingly crafted my arguments and drawn careful, well-supported conclusions. Why didn’t these reviewers understand my paper?!My mentor looked at me calmly and shared a hard truth that changed the way I thought about my writing. She said, “The editor chose three reviewers who he viewed as trusted experts. These hand-picked experts didn’t understand your paper. If multiple, highly educated people didn’t understand what you wrote, whose fault is that?”She was right. Publishing manuscripts is not just about being technically correct and scientifically sound. It is about communicating with an audience. How is your manuscript useful to the readers? How can other researchers build on this information? How does your manuscript advance the field? I reviewed the comments carefully. Once I worked through my emotional reaction, I realized how useful the reviews were. I thought about how best to incorporate the reviews, and I decided to start over. I began by making a new outline. I kept my original results section but rewrote the rest of the paper in a way that was clear and conveyed why the work was meaningful. The revised paper was quickly accepted at another journal.Rejection: Perspectives from Four AcademicsMost, probably all, successful academics have stories like mine. Here, I have compiled advice on handling rejection from four highly productive scholars in school psychology at different levels in their careers: Dr. Desireé Vega, Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona; Dr. Stephen Kilgus, Associate Professor at University of Missouri; Dr. Renée Tobin, Professor at Temple University; and Dr. Randy Floyd, Professor and Associate Chair at University of Memphis.All four scholars indicated that, like most academics, they have experienced rejection many times. When asked if he had experienced rejection, Dr. Kilgus noted:“Far more than I would care to admit! I have had plenty of papers rejected, including plenty that appeared to be tanked by a single reviewer (with two other reviewers expressing high opinions of the work). There are certainly also those “zombie” papers, that have been shopped to multiple journals over multiple years. Some have found a home, others continue to wander the earth…”The respondents provided a great deal of advice for early career scholars. Themes and key supporting quotes are presented below:1. Have realistic expectations. Remember that rejection is the norm. RF: Know you must be tough to navigate through the peer-review process. Check out this cartoon from Nick D. Kim (http://www.lab-initio.com/) that conveys well these challenges that authors face in publishing in the strongest journals: http://lab-initio.com/images/fullsize/nz060.jpg. My guess is that the most prolific authors in our field (and psychology as a whole) experience rejection by handling editors (e.g., associate editors and editors-in-chief) at a rate at least double (and probably three or four times) their number of published journal articles. Based on loads of evidence, such as the annual APA journal statistics and operations reports (see http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics.aspx) and journal operations reports routinely published by school psychology journals like JSP (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440517300936) and SPQ (in the APA journal statistics and operations reports), your standard expectation when you submit a manuscript for publication should be rejection. Although the rates of rejection do vary substantially across journals, remember that rejection comes with the territory.2. Carefully consider when to read the feedback and how to respondDV: When I receive a rejection, I usually do not read through the comments immediately. Sometimes reviewers are harsh and unfortunately do not always provide constructive feedback, so I wait until I am in a better space to review the feedback.SK: Do not read the rejection letter right away! It’s just going to make you mad. Let the recognition of rejection be enough for the first day. The next day, once you’re a little calmer, go back and read the decision letter. Know going in that there are going to be opinions with which you vehemently disagree. Also know that there are going to be really strong suggestions that are worthy of your attention. Some of my manuscripts have become much better papers as a result of initial rejection and my (occasionally begrudging) response to reviewer feedback.(Note. All respondents agreed that lashing out or sending an emotional response to the handling editor is unwise. See Floyd (2018) for detailed examples of appropriate and inappropriate responses: https://www.routledge.com/Publishing-in-School-Psychology-and-Related-Fields-An-Insiders-Guide/Floyd/p/book/9781138645998).3. Manage your emotions and engage in self-careRF: More generally, if you engage in wellness activities on a routine basis—socializing, engaging in aerobic exercise, eating a healthy diet, enjoying mindfulness activities such as meditation, and getting plenty of sleep—rejection should be easier to face. Consider that collaborating in research and writing may also benefit you, as your co-authors can be there for you in coping with rejection, offering perspective, and problem-solving.SK: Once you have received the rejection, do not spend a lot of time coming up with arguments and counter points. That journal does not want your paper back and I have yet to hear of someone who has successfully lobbied for their rejected paper to be reconsidered by a journal. Expend your energy on revising the paper and resubmitting it to a new outlet…RT: It is easy to associate the project with the negative feelings that come with a rejection. Try not to let that linger. Get it back under review somewhere else so the negative feelings can be replaced with positive ones or at least something you can do about it (i.e., respond to the next round of reviews when you receive a revise and resubmit response).4. Think carefully and logically about your plan for revisions. DV:  After reading the feedback, I decide whether I am going to make any changes to the manuscript before I send it to another journal. There have been times where I have not made any edits to a manuscript after it has been rejected and send it off elsewhere as it is. And there have been times where I have made changes to the manuscript before sending it elsewhere. The positive side of a rejection is that at least two reviewers have taken the time to provide feedback (hopefully constructive) on your work to help you make it a stronger paper. Nonetheless, after a rejection, the decision to incorporate that feedback into your paper is ultimately up to you.SK: Once you are ready to review the rejection letter, look for comments indicating when reviewers either (a) explicitly indicated their confusion or (b) made statements or assumptions that imply such confusion. Some authors draw the unfortunate conclusion that the reviewer was not qualified to review their work. However, I try to remind myself that if a reviewer did not understand something, that is at least partially on me as the author. I need to do a better job of structuring my content and conveying my ideas.RT: Carefully construct an objective list of editor and reviewer criticisms and address them. Once you have done so, find another suitable journal and submit it. Take enough time in this process that are able to be as objective as possible, but not too long that you let this manuscript fall out of your production queue. RF: Recently, someone asked me to address reviewers’ direct or implied references to “fatal flaws” evident in manuscripts. Sometimes, reviewers are correct in identifying serious objective weaknesses in your study (e.g., very small sample size or lack of a comparison group in group designs and lack of experimental control in single-case designs). Strive to stay in the game and address them with careful reporting of study limitations or collection of additional data in order to submit the manuscript elsewhere. After facing rejection by three or four journals, you may decide that your time would be better spent abandoning that manuscript and trying to publish another stronger study. Often reviewers will offer more nebulous, subjective criticisms (e.g., “this manuscript does not contribute significantly to the literature in the area”) that are idiosyncratic when rejecting manuscripts. In these cases, give the criticisms close scrutiny and consult with a more senior colleague, an insightful peer, or even the journal’s handling editor. In most cases, careful responses to these comments and reframing of the study can, with time, lead to significant improvements in its quality and ultimate acceptance by another journal.5. Use the reviews to improve your writing. RT: Consider how you can make your manuscript clearer to avoid similar criticism. Did you spend too long getting to the main point of the article in the introduction? Were the details of your methods obscured by complex syntax? Did you omit key information assuming that the reader would have a deeper understanding of your data collection or analysis methods? Forcing yourself to generate an objective list of criticisms and then systematically addressing them helps take the sting out of rejection, makes revising more manageable, improves your product, and will ultimately lead to you finding a home for your manuscript.   6. Find the right “home” for your manuscript. DV: But the best advice I received from a senior colleague was that there is a home for your manuscript. It might not be the first, second, third, or even fourth journal that you send it to, but it will eventually find a home… After a rejection, I would suggest finding a new home for it as soon as possible!! On average, I wait no more than one month to resubmit the manuscript. This helps me maintain a steady stream of projects/manuscripts in progress and under review.RT: Early in my career, one of my colleagues noted, “Every project has a home. Your job is to find it.” Sometimes finding that home requires minimal revision and submission to another journal. Sometimes it requires a major overhaul of every section of the manuscript. Sometimes it requires that you collect additional data. Whatever it is, do not give up.RF: After time has passed, determine what you can control, and ponder ways to prevent the same decision from occurring again. Consider the manuscript that was rejected, generate strategies to address the critiques in a revision, and search diligently for a better-fitting journal (based on the structure and relative strength of articles published in that journal, the number of manuscripts submitted to it, its impact and reputation, the composition of its editorial board, etc.). More generally, file away the feedback and use it to guide your development of future studies and design of future manuscripts.7. Know the Habits of Productive ScholarsRF: Perhaps the best, most data-driven article on the topic of being productive as a scholar was developed by Rebecca Martinez for a special issue of JSP published in 2011. This article is “Strategies And Attributes Of Highly Productive Scholars And Contributors To The School Psychology Literature: Recommendations For Increasing Scholarly Productivity” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440511000835). Personally, I re-read it from time to time. A key finding was that the most productive scholars take peer reviews seriously, address revisions thoroughly, and learn from constructive feedback. Specific strategies included (a) not taking criticism and rejection personally and (b) rewriting, revising, and resubmitting without delay. Some of these scholars also suggested serving as a reviewer for journals in which you’d like to publish. Among other things, doing so gives you perspective by allowing you to see the review process from the other side of what you experience as an author. 8. Move Onward and UpwardSK: There is going to be plenty of rejection throughout your career – it’s the rule more than the exception. Of course, recognition of rejection’s commonality by no means makes it easy to take. Just do not get discouraged. Some folks end up playing it too safe and submitting their future work to lower tiered journals, just because they do not want to face tough criticism or because they do not think their work is worthy. Keep getting better at what you do and expose yourself to tough feedback. It is the only way we grow.In conclusion, rejection is part of academia. While many prefer not to talk about it, most of us experience it more than we’d like to admit. As an Associate Editor, I am often in a position where I need to recommend that a manuscript be rejected. When this happens, I always close my rejection letter to the author by noting that I have been the recipient of many rejection letters, and that I understand how disappointing the news can be – because it is true. I have received many rejection letters over the course of my career. But, while disappointing, the feedback that came with each rejection brought me one step closer to success.ReferencesFloyd, R. G. (2018). The peer-review process and responding to reviewer feedback. In R. G. Floyd (Ed.), Publishing in school psychology and related fields: An insider’s guide (pp. 45-61). New York, NY: Routledge.Martinez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 691–720.

Read More
Professional Development, Publishing, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty Professional Development, Publishing, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty

Demystifying the Peer Review Process: Advice from Associate Editors

May 1, 2017

Guest post by Ethan R. Van Norman, Georgia State UniversityIn a previous post, the ECF offered guidance on identifying where to submit a manuscript. One piece of advice was to consider the composition of the journal’s editorial board. From that we can infer that the likelihood your paper will be viewed favorably depends in part on the background and theoretical orientation of the individuals that will review your paper. Many of the readers of the ECF serve on those editorial boards. In the frenzy to submit papers and hopefully obtain tenure, it is easy to lose sight of the importance and necessity of the peer review process. In fact, wading through reviewer comments to revise an article (if we are so lucky to be invited to do so) is often viewed as a chore instead of an opportunity to improve our work. Such woes may be self-inflicted (e.g., we did a poor job setting up the rationale for our study or overlooked critical threats to the internal validity of our findings) or, as many of us would rather believe, we are tasked with addressing reviewer comments that appear to be devoid of meaningful content or consist of unfair criticisms without solutions. The purpose of this blog post is to highlight steps that early career scholars can take to ensure that the reviews they provide are of the variety to make the revision process for colleagues as pain free as possible.In November Michelle Demaray discussed serving on an editorial board pre-tenure. In that post Dr. Demaray cited two important characteristics of a reviewer: (1) promptness and editorial board etiquette as well as (2) writing quality reviews. The purpose of this post is to further discuss what constitutes a high-quality review from the perspective of associate editors. This topic is particularly relevant for early career scholars because many universities expect pre-tenure faculty to serve on editorial boards. Indeed, serving on an editorial board is an effective and meaningful way to engage in service for the field. Beyond early career considerations, peer review is a mechanism to ensure scholarly work of sufficient quality and importance is published. High quality reviews can help authors re-conceptualize or refine the initial premises of the paper, which may ultimately lead to a more meaningful or methodologically sound work.To further explore what early career faculty can do to complete high quality reviews, we solicited responses to a series of questions from two associate editors of school psychology journals. Given the somewhat sensitive nature of the questions, we elected to withhold the names of the associate editors. The ECF is grateful for the feedback from both contributors.Advice to ReviewersQuestion 1: What types of comments do you seek from reviewers? That is, which type of comments do you find the most useful when rendering your editorial decision? Is there a general “approach” you recommend reviewers take when conducting a review?AE #1: I find that reviews that not only provide a general perspective on the manuscript, but also provide specific information regarding strengths and questions/concerns to be the most useful. Reviewers who articulate the big ideas from their review (e.g., conceptualization issues, methodological strengths and problems, how findings were reported) up front and then expand by illustrating specific instances that support their perspectives not only help me make sense of their viewpoints, but also can help the authors with any subsequent revisions. In other words, I think a critical discussion of the manuscript typically is more helpful than a list of issues that require the authors and the action editor to construct the reviewer’s message.AE #2: I find reviews most helpful if they (a) comprehensively evaluate each section of the manuscript, (b) provide an overall evaluation of the manuscript, (c) are constructive, and (d) note positive attributes of the manuscript.Question 2: Relatedly, to what degree do you consider reviewer feedback when rendering your editorial decision? Can you elaborate on a situation in which you rendered a decision counter to the prevailing opinion of the reviewers – or the circumstances in which that might occur?AE #1: Reviewer feedback absolutely informs the decisions that I render. I am one person who cannot possibly have a command of all of the issues surrounding a given topic or study. Quality reviews help me identify and think through issues relevant to a manuscript. In many instances, they also can help with articulating the rationale for a decision and issues to be addressed if a revision is invited. I have yet to render a decision for a manuscript that was not consistent with at least one or more of the reviewers; however, when I have rendered different decisions than those recommended by individual reviewers, it typically had to do with a difference in perspective (e.g., the appropriateness of the methods used, the fit of the manuscript for the journal). As much as we often strive to be objective in our field, subjectivity absolutely is a part of the peer review process.AE #2: I strongly consider reviewer feedback as a critical component of the peer review process. An editorial decision is not, however, a “vote count” or tally. In some instances, I or a reviewer may identify a critical flaw not identified by other reviewers.Question 3: Inevitably every author will receive an undesirable editorial decision. However, it seems that subjective experience of the peer review process can be highly influenced by the tone of reviewers. Do you have any advice to reviewers to ensure that their comments are as constructive and as respectful as possible?AE # 1: The peer review process requires a critical review of manuscripts so that scientifically-sound work gets published. However, it can be easy to get on a roll with issues you identify and not remember that other human beings will be on the other side of the decision letter. It helps me to remember that science is a tool invented and used by humans to try and understand their world, which means that no scientific endeavor is perfect. However, all papers I have reviewed or have been the action editor for had strengths in addition to limitations. Additionally, I would encourage reviewers to remember that nobody is correct 100% of the time. It doesn’t hurt to include language such as “my perspective…” or “my thoughts are…” when you don’t agree with a decision that could be defensible.AE #2: I think it is helpful to make comments that are encouraging, specific, and can be addressed. It is particularly useful when reviewers point to a paper or resource authors can review to improve their work.Question 4:  If you had to give 1-2 key tips for new reviewers, what would they be?AE #1: Remember the reviews that you have found the most helpful as an author. I suggest operating from the spirit of pointing out issues and providing suggestions to assist the authors in improving the scholarship represented by the manuscript. It isn’t a reviewer’s job to tell the authors what to do, but providing your perspectives and suggestions can do wonders for authors who ultimately want to see their work published.AE #2: Accept or decline invitations to review quickly, submit reviews on-time, and create comprehensive and constructive reviews.Advice to AuthorsQuestion 1: It seems that receiving a decision of “Revise and Resubmit” is often a sigh of relief for new authors. What advice do you have for authors to increase the likelihood that they will receive the coveted “Tentative Accept” or similar decision without going through multiple rounds of reviewer feedback and revisions?AE #1: I always recommend putting the decision letter down after the initial read and coming back to it once you have had a chance to reflect on how you will respond. Once you come back to it, I strongly recommend that you make sure that you thoroughly and clearly address any direction for revisions provided by the action editor. S/he basically is telling you what s/he expects to see for the paper to be published. I also would write a very clear response letter that articulates exactly how you responded to the requested revisions and provides a strong rationale for any revisions you decided not to make (I would minimize these instances as they will need to be very compelling to convince an editor that his/her initial direction should not have been addressed by the authors). I also would clearly articulate how you responded to any reviewer comments not directly addressed by the editor.AE #2:1. Include testable research questions that emanate clearly from the literature review.2. Make explicit the importance and implications of the study.3. Clearly link all sections together, based on the research questions.4. Include only implications that are supported by the study findings.5. Adhere to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).6. Attend to details.Question 2: The time from submitting a manuscript to a journal and receiving an editorial decision can seem excruciatingly long. Given that different journals set different expectations for rendering a decision, do you have any advice as to when an author should follow up with an associate editor regarding a paper? Further, do you have any advice in going about making that request?AE #1: I definitely would not follow-up before the anticipated decision date. I can’t speak for other action editors, but I would not mind receiving a follow-up email at any point after the communicated timeframe for rendering a decision (2-3 months for my journal). In terms of making the request, I would recommend letting the action editor know that you understand how busy s/he is, but that you were wondering when you might expect to receive a decision. Most of us have been in your shoes as an author and a respectful email may facilitate us moving up on our to-do list rendering a decision on your manuscript.AE #2: Many journals report average time to decision. I recommend checking the journal website and any associated materials that may identify a timeline. I think it is reasonable to check-in with an Associate Editor or Editor two months after the average time to decision. If a timeline is not reported, I think it is reasonable to check-in after about 9-months.ConclusionFor more information on the peer review process in School Psychology, Floyd, Cooley, Arnett, Fagan, Mercer, and Hingle (2011) highlight, among other things, what editors consider to be desirable characteristics of reviewers. In line with the comments offered from the current associate editors, editors in that study viewed reviewers that provided constructive feedback with specific strategies to overcome perceived shortcomings as being the most helpful. To that end, early career scholars can seek out references to identify how to write constructive feedback for reviews (e.g., http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx) as well as handbooks that detail desiderata for different quantitative (e.g., Hancock & Mueller, 2010) and qualitative (e.g., Trainor & Graue, 2013) methods. In conclusion, it’s important to remember that conducting high quality reviews is important for our field. Yes, turning in another review may be another item on your weekly to do list, but the next time you grumble about the amount of time it’s been since you heard back from a journal or the next time your call a colleague to vent about the tone and content of a review you received– take a moment to look back at the most recent review you completed. Did you complete it on time? Was the tone respectful? Did you offer specific rationale for the criticisms you offered and provide specific recommendations to address those criticisms? Were the critiques fair to begin with? Reviewing others how you’d like to be reviewed may go a long way in ensuring the revision process is a worthwhile endeavor.Do you have different perspectives for how to conduct a high-quality review? Do you use different resources / approaches to review papers? Feel free to share your insights / experiences in the comment section below!ReferencesFloyd, R. G., Cooley, K. M., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., Hingle, C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 617-647.Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2010). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods. New York, NY: RoutledgeTrainor, A., A., & Graue, E. (Eds.). (2013). Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

Read More
Publishing, Research, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty Publishing, Research, Writing, Grad Students & Future Faculty

Where Should I Send My Manuscript? Journal Options for Researchers in School Psychology

March 22, 2017

A common concern among early career researchers is how to identify appropriate journals for their work. Researchers in school psychology publish in a broad range of journals – from school psychology, to general and special education, educational psychology and other subfields of psychology, public health, prevention science, and other fields depending on the topic of a given manuscript. Productive scholars know it is essential to understand the nuances of potential outlets and their respective audiences when before submitting a manuscript. Even within a relatively small field like school psychology, each journal is unique, so a manuscript should be tailored to the journal to which it is submitted. The flip side is that barring fatal flaws, there is a fitting outlet for most manuscripts.How do you identify potential publishing outlets?

  • Check your reference list. If you cite multiple papers from a given journal or subfield, it’s likely your paper will fit in that journal or subfield as well.
  • Consider where similar scholars publish their work. If others in your area publish in particular journals, you can infer that you work might also have a home there.
  • Search the Journal Citation Reports.Web of Science’s JCR allows you to search for all journals indexed by category and rankable by journal metrics. There’s no category for school psychology, but most school psychology journals are include in the category, Psychology – Educational. Other categories that may be of interest to school psychology researchers are Education & Educational Research; Education – Special; Health Policy & Services; Psychology – Applied; Psychology – Developmental; Psychology – Multidisciplinary; and Social Issues.
  • Ask your colleagues, collaborators, and mentors. This can be especially helpful for early career scholars. Many publications have reputations independent of journal metrics. Colleagues in your department, field, or area of study can help you to understand the stature of specific journals or subfields of journals within school psychology or your institution. Colleagues can also be helpful in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the journal scope, expectations, and review process, which may inform your decision about whether or not to submit your work to an outlet.

How do you select the best fit for your manuscript?

  • Review journal websites. Most journals have a website where the purpose, scope, author guidelines, editorial board, and other journal-specific information is provided. When preparing a manuscript submission to a journal, it’s important to ensure your manuscript is consistent with the scope and type of manuscripts accepted (e.g., original study, review, brief report, commentary) and follows the author guidelines or submission requirements (e.g., implications for specific audiences).
  • Peruse recent issues and online first publications. You can gain insight into the types of work regarded favorably by an editor and editorial board by considering the topical areas and types of papers recently published. These articles can also provide clues about stylistic idiosyncrasies of the journal.
  • Read the editor’s commentaries. Most editors serve discrete terms and it’s common for an incoming editor to publish a commentary on their vision for a journal at the beginning of their term. It’s a great resource when considering fit, particularly if there have not been multiple issues published under the new leadership.
  • Check out the editorial boards. It’s likely that a submitted manuscript will be reviewed by one or more members of a journal’s editorial board. You can gauge the applicable expertise of board members, and often even suggest specific reviewers. The constituency of the editorial board provides indication of the expertise—and by extension, the scholarship—valued by the editorial team.
  • Review journal metrics. There are a variety of metrics used to evaluate journal stature (e.g., impact per publication, source normalized impact per paper, SCImago journal rank, total cites, eigenfactor score, h-index, immediacy index, article influence score). Select journal metrics are included in the Journal Citation Reports and are often reported on journal websites. Many institutions value publications in high status journals and make inferences about the quality and impact of an article based on select metrics of a journal.  Consequently, the journals in which a scholar has published are often taken into consideration in review of researchers during hiring, promotion/tenure process, grant reviews, and selection for honors/awards. If you are in a unit or institution where journal metrics are a focus, it may be important to consider journal metrics when selecting outlets for your work.

It’s not uncommon for early career scholars to wonder what the journals in school psychology are as a starting point. Here’s a list of several peer-reviewed school psychology journals: Journal of School Psychology, School Psychology Review, School Psychology Quarterly, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology International, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Journal of Applied School Psychology, School Psychology Forum, Contemporary School Psychology, International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, and The Trainer’s Forum. keep in mind, however, that most school psychology scholars publish in a wide array of journals, so don’t limit yourself to school psychology journals.So, there are a variety of strategies you can use to determine potential outlets for your work. We invite others to share recommendations and reflections on these tips. Have a question? Post below and we’ll provide more information.

Read More

About the Forum

The SSSP Early Career Forum (ECF) exists to disseminate information to early career scholars concerning matters relating to their success as academicians and scientists, and to cultivate an online community of early career scholars to provide support, exchange ideas, and develop and nurture collaborations. We define early career scholars as individuals who aim to embark on a research career or have begun a research career in a research center, university, or state or local agency. This includes graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and pre-tenure faculty in school psychology. The ECF is designed to achieve this mission by:

  • Maintaining a blog addressing topics of relevant to early-career scholars in school psychology to allow for discussion among early-career, mid-career, and senior scholars;

  • Providing a forum for scholars to network, exchange ideas, and develop research collaborations.

  • Engaging in live professional development and networking events during annual professional meetings;

  • Inviting guest bloggers and speakers to enrich the diversity of perspectives represented in ECF activities;

  • Collaborating with SPRCC to identify professional development and networking activities to foster ongoing engagement of early career scholars; and

  • Gathering data on the needs of early career scholars in school psychology to inform content for the blog and other professional development activities.

You can learn more about how the ECF began here.

The SSSP ECF is led by a committee of early and mid-career scholars in school psychology. If you have questions, comments, or ideas for ECF programming or blog topics, please email the committee chair.

Current Committee Members

Past committee members include: Lindsay Fallon, Bryn Harris, Katie Maki, Courtenay Barrett, Ethan Van Norman, Rob Volpe, Leandra Parris, Tamika La Salle-Finley, Laura Pendergast, Dan Gadke, and Ryan Farmer

ECF Bylaws

Please send questions, comments, or ideas for new blogs to the ECF Chair (ecf.sssp@gmail.com).